39 views

Uploaded by Ankush Bhandari

- output data sayang.doc
- E1 RDR
- Equation Sheet
- 10 ANOVA
- As Say 2
- chapter2-anova-general-linear-hypothesis.pdf
- Optimization of Material Removal Rate During Turning of SAE 1020 Material in CNC Lathe using Taguchi Technique
- TSCI110528024R
- CDI
- homework 2
- SPSS KTI
- Lecture 1 Data Quality and Statistics
- deshidratacion osmotica
- Hasil.docx
- ch13
- Ch11 Point Estimation
- Wendorf ReportingStatistics
- teens and hiv statistical analysisfactorial 1
- hijerarh
- 8. IJBMR-Critical Analysis of Management Information Systems for Enhancing Performance of Strategic Marketing of B-School

You are on page 1of 43

• Observe an emergency alone IV = Number of people present

• Observe an emergency w/ 1 other DV = Time it takes (in secs.) to call for help

• Observe an emergency w/ 2 others

person

X 2= 9 X 1= 8 X 0= 3

EX: Would the amount of time people wait to help be affected by

the gender of the person in need of help?

Let’s do an experiment where we stage an emergency situation:

These two IVs are “crossed,” meaning that each level of one IV is

paired with all levels of the other IV

person

Male victim X=9 X=8 X=3

Female victim X=4 X=4 X=2

Chapter 17: Page 4

VOCABULARY

Factor = Independent variable

Two-factor ANOVA / Two-way ANOVA: an experiment with 2

independent variables

NOTATION

3 X 2 factorial = experiment w/ 2 IVs: one w/ 3 levels, one w/ 2

levels

2 X 2 factorial = experiment w/ 2 IVs: both w/ 2 levels

3 X 2 X 2 = ????

Why do a two-factor (two-way) ANOVA?

1. Greater generalizability of results

--EX: If experiment is only done with a male victim, we don’t

know if the results are also true for female victims

--The effect of one IV depends on the level of the other IV

¼ get antibiotics and are not allergic

¼ don’t get antibiotics and are not allergic

¼ get antibiotics and are allergic

¼ don’t get antibiotics and are allergic

--Measure how well the patients feel the next day

Chapter 17: Page 6

6

5

5

4

Allergic?

3 3 No

3

Yes

1

1

0

No Yes

Receive Anti-biotic

6

5 5

5

4

Allergic?

3 3 No

3

Yes

0

No Yes

Receive anti-biotic

like this

Let’s return to our bystander intervention experiment:

person

Male victim X=9 X=8 X=3

Female victim X=4 X=4 X=2

statistical tests:

2. Main effect of IV2: # of Bystanders Present

3. Interaction b/n the two IVs (gender & # of bystanders)

Each is a hypothesis test:

H0: all levels of gender have the same mean

H1: all levels of gender do not have the same mean

H0: all levels of bystander have the same mean

H1: all levels of bystander do not have the same mean

Interaction:

H0: there is no interaction between the factors

H1: there is an interaction between the factors

Main Effects

Defined: The effect of ONE IV on the DV averaged across the levels of the

other IV

In our example:

versus female victims, averaging over the number of bystanders present?

That is: Ignoring the number of bystanders, does response time differ for

male versus female victims?

--Main effect of # of bystanders: Is there a difference in response time when

there is 1 versus 2 versus 3 bystanders present, averaging over the victim’s

gender?

That is: Ignoring the gender of the victim, does response time differ based

on the number of bystanders present?

One way to understand main effects is to examine something

called marginal means

Response time for

male victims,

averaging over # of

bystanders

P + 2 people P + 1 person P + 0 people Marginal (9 + 8 + 3) / 3 =

Means 6.67

Male victim

X=9 X=8 X=3 X = 6.67

Female victim

X=4 X=4 X=2 X = 3.33

Marginal Means

X = 6.5 X =6 X = 2.5 Response time for

female victims,

averaging over # of

Response time bystanders

Response time (4 + 4 + 2) / 3 =

for 3 Response time

for 2 3.33

bystanders, for 1 bystander,

bystanders,

averaging over averaging over

averaging over

gender gender

gender

(9 + 4) / 2 = 6.5 (3 + 2) / 2 = 2.5

(8 + 4) / 2 = 6

A main effect of gender asks:

victims) differ?

2.5 (1 bystander) differ?

Calculations

anova by hand is time and labor intensive

package, like SPSS

Calculations: Main Effects Sums of Squares

Calculations for main effects SS in a two-way ANOVA are very similar to the

calculations we used in one-way ANOVA

Conceptually, to calculate the SS for a main effect, one is comparing each

marginal mean to the overall (grand) mean

P + 2 people P + 1 person P + 0 people Marginal Means

Male victim

X=9 X=8 X=3 X = 6.67

Female victim

X=4 X=4 X=2 X = 3.33

Marginal Means Overall: 5

X = 6.5 X =6 X = 2.5

For a main effect of # of bystanders, one is taking the squared difference b/n:

The mean from 3 bystanders & the overall mean (6.5 – 5)

The mean from 2 bystanders & the overall mean (6-5)

The mean from 1 bystander & the overall mean (2.5 – 5)

For a main effect of gender, one is taking the squared difference b/n:

The mean from male victims & the overall mean (6.67 – 5)

The mean from female victims & the overall mean (3.33-5)

between each score and the overall grand mean

Calculations: Sums of Squares Cells

between each cell mean and the overall grand mean

cell

2. They come from different levels of # of bystanders

3. There is an interaction b/n gender & # of bystanders

SS cells is made up of 3 parts:

SS gender

SS # of bystanders

SS interaction

Calculations: Sums of Squares Error

Of the total SS, we know what is due to gender (SS gender), what

is due to the # of bystanders (SS bystanders) and what is due

to the interaction (SS interaction). Thus:

ANOVA Table

Source df SS MS F

Gender

# of Bystanders

Interaction (G*B)

Error

Total

Calculations: Degrees of Freedom

dftotal = N – 1

Calculations: Mean Squares

To find any MS, take the SS & divide by its corresponding df

SS Gender

MSGender = df Gender

MSBystanders = df Bys tan ders

SS Interactio n

MSInteraction = df Interactio n

SS Error

MSError = df Error

Calculations: F statistics

To find the 3 F statistics for our tests, take the MS for the 2 IVs &

the MS for the interaction & divide them by the MSError

MS Gender

FGender = MS Error

FBystanders = MS Error

MS Interactio

FInteraction =

n

MS Error

Calculations: Critical Values

you obtain the appropriate critical value from Table E.3 or E.4

For each F, you have two df: one for the corresponding factor and

the dfError

As usual, if the obtained F value equals or exceeds the critical

value, then we reject the null hypothesis and conclude that we

have a statistically significant effect

Between-Subjects Factors

Gender of f 15

Victim m 15

# of bystanders 1.00 10

present 2.00 10

3.00

10 Main

effect of

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects gender

Type III Sum

Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Corrected Model 200.000 a 5 40.000 17.778 .000

Intercept 750.000 1 750.000 333.333 .000

GENDER 83.333 1 83.333 37.037 .000 Main effect

of

BYSTAND 95.000 2 47.500 21.111 .000

bystanders

GENDER * BYSTAND 21.667 2 10.833 4.815 .017

Error 54.000 24 2.250

Total 1004.000 30

Corrected Total 254.000 29

a. R Squared = .787 (Adjusted R Squared = .743)

Interaction

between

gender &

bystanders

There was a

main effect

Estimated Marginal Means of gender, so

these means

differ

1. Gender of Victim

95% Confidence Interval

Gender of Victim Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

f 33

. 33 .387 25

. 34 41

. 33 There was a

m 66

. 67 .387 58

. 67 74

. 66 main effect

of bystander,

so there is a

difference

2. # of bystanders present

among these

Dependent Variable: How long do P wait to help? means

95% Confidence Interval

# of bystanders present Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

10

. 0 25

. 00 .474 15

. 21 34

. 79

20

. 0 60

. 00 .474 50

. 21 69

. 79

30

. 0 65

. 00 .474 55

. 21 74

. 79

3. Gender of Victim * # of bystanders present

95% Confidence Interval

Gender of Victim # of bystanders present Mean Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound

f 10

. 0 20

. 00 .671 .615 33

. 85

20

. 0 40

. 00 .671 26

. 15 53

. 85

30

. 0 40

. 00 .671 26

. 15 53

. 85

m 10

. 0 30

. 00 .671 16

. 15 43

. 85

20

. 0 80

. 00 .671 66

. 15 93

. 85

30

. 0 90

. 00 .671 76

. 15 103

. 85

interaction, so the

effect of bystander

depends on the level of

gender

Multiple-comparison procedures: Post-hoc tests VS simple effects

If there is a significant main effect, & that factor has only two levels, you know

that those two marginal means differ significantly from each other

If there is a significant main effect, & that factor has 3 or more levels, you

know that at least two of those marginal means differ. Need multiple-

comparison procedures (post-hocs) to determine which ones.

Post Hoc Tests: # of bystanders present

1 bystander

Multiple Comparisons

differs from

Dependent Variable: How long do P wait to help?

LSD

2

Mean

(I) # of bystanders (J) # of bystanders Difference 95% Confidence Interval

present present (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound 1 bystander

10. 0 20

. 0 - 35000

. * .6708 .000 - 48845

. -21155

. differs from

30

. 0 - 40000

. * .6708 .000 - 53845

. -26155

.

20

. 0 10

. 0 35. 000* .6708 .000 21

. 155 48

. 845

3

30

. 0 -.5000 .6708 .463 - 18845

. .8845

30

. 0 10

. 0 40. 000* .6708 .000 26

. 155 53

. 845

20

. 0 .5000 .6708 .463 -.8845 18

. 845 2 bystanders

Based on observed means. DO NOT

*. The mean difference is significant at the .05level.

differ from 3

Multiple-comparison procedures: Post-hoc tests VS simple effects

Understanding Interactions

An interaction occurs when the effect of one IV depends on the level of the

other IV

If you obtain a significant interaction, you may want to examine it closely to see

what is causing it

A useful first step is to graph the means to see the pattern of the interaction

You could graph the means two different ways:

1

0

8

Estimated Marginal Means

4

# of bystanders pres

1

. 00

2

2

. 00

0 3

. 00

f m

Gender of Victim

Graphed this way, we see that the bystander effect seems smaller for female

victims compared to male victims

Estimated Marginal Means of How long do P wait to help?

10

6

Gender of Victim

2

f

0 m

1.00 2.00 3.00

# of bystanders present

Graphed this way, we see that male and female victims get helped about equally

quickly with one bystander present, but when multiple bystanders are

present, a gender difference emerges

Understanding Interactions

“The effect of one IV at one level of another IV”

There is no difference in

Simple effects of gender at each level of bystander: response time for male and

female victims when only

1 bystander is present

Univariate Tests

Sum of

# of bystanders present Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

10

. 0 Contrast 25

. 00 1 25

. 00 11

. 11 .302

Error 540

. 00 24 22

. 50

20

. 0 Contrast 400

. 00 1 400

. 00 177

. 78 .000

Error 540

. 00 24 22

. 50

30

. 0 Contrast 625

. 00 1 625

. 00 277

. 78 .000

Error 540

. 00 24 22

. 50

Each F tests the simple effects of Gender of Victim within each level combination of the other effects

shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated

marginal means.

There is a difference

between male and female

victims in response time

when 2 or 3 bystanders

are present

Simple effects of bystander at each level of gender:

Univariate Tests

Sum of

Gender of Victim Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

f Contrast 133

. 33 2 66

. 67 29

. 63 .071

Error 540

. 00 24 22

. 50

m Contrast 1033

. 33 2 516

. 67 229

. 63 .000

Error 540

. 00 24 22

. 50

Each F tests the simple effects of # of bystanders present within each level combination of the

other effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons

among the estimated marginal means.

the levels of bystander for

male victims. There is no

such difference for female

victims

Interpretation

Reporting the results of a two-way anova is complex because there are so many

tests conducted. Below is one way you might report the results of the

above analyses:

“An experiment was conducted to determine if the number of bystanders present

in an emergency situation and the gender of the victim in an emergency

situation affect the time it takes a person to help. A two-way ANOVA

found a main effect of gender, F(1,24)=37.037, p ≤ .05, indicating that

female victims are helped sooner than male victims. There was also a

main effect of the number of bystanders present, F(2,24)=21.111, p ≤ .05.

This effect showed that a lone bystander helped much sooner than when

there were 2 or 3 bystanders present. Finally, there was an interaction

between gender and the number of bystanders present, F(2,24)=4.815, p

≤ .05. Simple effects tests showed that male and female victims receive

help equally quickly when only 1 bystander is present, F(1,24)=1.11, p

> .05. However, when 2 or 3 bystanders are present, female victims were

helped more quickly than male victims, F(1,24)=17.778, p ≤ .05 for 2

bystanders and F(1,24)=27.778, p ≤ .05 for 3 bystanders.”

Filling in an ANOVA Table

You should be able to complete a partially filled in ANOVA table

advertisements. We manipulate:

IV2: Whether the ad is in black/white or color

DV: How persuasive do Ps find the ad on a scale where 1 = Not at all persuaded;

7 = Extremely persuaded

ANOVA Table

Source df SS MS F

Spokesperson 200

Color 150

Interaction (S*C) 50

Error

Total 850

We should be able to complete everything else!

Calculate df

Spokesperson has 2 levels df = (k – 1) = (2 – 1) = 1

Color has 2 levels df = (k – 1) = (2 – 1) = 1

Interaction df is the product of the df for the 2 IVs = 1*1 = 1

Total df = (N – 1) = (80-1) = 79

Error df = “what’s left over” (79 – 1 – 1 – 1) = 76

Source df SS MS F

Spokesperson 1 200

Color 1 150

Interaction (S*C) 1 50

Error 76

Total 79 850

The SS for all factors and interactions should add up to the total

SS. Thus:

Source df SS MS F

Spokesperson 1 200

Color 1 150

Interaction (S*C) 1 50

Error 76 450

Total 79 850

SS spokespers 2

00 SS color 150

MSSpokesperson = df spokespers

on

on

=

1

=2

00

MScolor = df color

=

1

= 150

MSInteraction = df Interactio n

=

1

= 50

MSError = df Error

=

76

= 5.92

Source df SS MS F

Spokesperson 1 200 200

Color 1 150 150

Interaction (S*C) 1 50 50

Error 76 450 5.92

Total 79 850

MS Spokespers 200 MS Color 150

FSpokesperson = MS Error

on

=

5.9

2

=3

3.7

8

FColor = MS Error

=

5.92

= 25.34

MS Interactio n 50

FInteraction = MS Error

=

5.92

= 8.45

Source df SS MS F

Spokesperson 1 200 200 33.78

Color 1 150 150 25.34

Interaction (S*C) 1 50 50 8.45

Error 76 450 5.92

Total 79 850

Finally, we’d compare each F to the appropriate critical F value

All tests in this example have 1,76 df. Assuming α = .05, from

Table E.3, we’ll use the df that are closest to but smaller than

the actual df, b/c they are not listed

Thus, we will use the df for (1,60) = 4.00

All F’s exceed the critical value

- output data sayang.docUploaded byBradley Salazar
- E1 RDRUploaded byeaera381
- Equation SheetUploaded byCristian Riosmata
- 10 ANOVAUploaded byPriya Riya
- As Say 2Uploaded byleongchinrick
- chapter2-anova-general-linear-hypothesis.pdfUploaded bysricharitha6702
- Optimization of Material Removal Rate During Turning of SAE 1020 Material in CNC Lathe using Taguchi TechniqueUploaded byAnonymous lGK9Y6
- TSCI110528024RUploaded byRisto Filkoski
- CDIUploaded bydama aprilianto
- homework 2Uploaded byapi-253411445
- SPSS KTIUploaded byryannnn
- Lecture 1 Data Quality and StatisticsUploaded bydgrapov
- deshidratacion osmoticaUploaded byDavid Ramirez
- Hasil.docxUploaded byPMKP RSGH
- ch13Uploaded byDwiNovriadi
- Ch11 Point EstimationUploaded byTommyc1024
- Wendorf ReportingStatisticsUploaded byAlina Ciabuca
- teens and hiv statistical analysisfactorial 1Uploaded byapi-301890166
- hijerarhUploaded byHepicentar Niša
- 8. IJBMR-Critical Analysis of Management Information Systems for Enhancing Performance of Strategic Marketing of B-SchoolUploaded byTJPRC Publications
- CH04LE~1Uploaded byJose Triano
- Formula Sheet STATUploaded byCiitHarappa
- Optimizing Highway Maintenance OperationUploaded bySakthivelan Ramachandran
- AnovaUploaded byagumas
- The Statistical Cracks in the Foundation of the Popular Gauge R and RUploaded byPrince Aman
- ReliabilityUploaded byMANUELCHATE
- How Does Your Kindergarten Classroom Affect Your Earnings?Uploaded byAdrián García
- Weekly Salary Paper May 6Uploaded byBill Dry
- Survey Report on NoodlesUploaded byRicha Banga
- Chapt 21Uploaded bymystical_lady89

- Garcia Tixce Nicole Denisse g1 Reading IIUploaded byNicole Tixce
- EDDE 804 - Assignment 2Uploaded byApostolos Koutropoulos
- Peace Corps Session V -Bystander Intervention Trainers GuideUploaded byAccessible Journal Media: Peace Corps Documents
- Chapter 1 Research MethodsUploaded byrabiadasti
- Heroism: A Conceptual Analysis and Differentiation Between Heroic Action and Altruism - Franco, Blau & Zimbardo 2011Uploaded byZeno Franco
- 1. Bullying in School. Nature, Effects and RemediesUploaded byAna Maria
- compilation research reportUploaded byapi-289044570
- Annex 1 Office of People Analytics 2017 Military Service Gender Relations Focus Group ReportUploaded byStephen Loiaconi
- lesson plan finalUploaded byapi-357695749
- IB Psychology Abnormal and Human Relationships Options Studies SheetUploaded byNaomiGraham
- Seven Ways to Nurture Tolerance in StudentsUploaded byKaren Rodriguez
- Practical Applications & Practical ImplicationsUploaded byFaisal Ahmed
- cyberbullying annotated bibliography finalUploaded byapi-258925897
- Super Epic Awesome Anthro Review NotesUploaded byDerek Zhang
- 1Uploaded byapi-335364132
- unit 2_3Uploaded bysimranarora2007
- Research Paper (Bullying)Uploaded byVanissa
- DealingBullying_compile0209Uploaded byjfuentesd
- full questions - smc sexual assault campus climate surveyUploaded byapi-309293464
- Chapter 17 Two-way AnovaUploaded byAnkush Bhandari
- bystander effectUploaded bykellyroma
- Analysis of Bullying Prevention and InterventionUploaded byPurther Cabahit
- fast-fact-bullying-in-schools.pdfUploaded bybujor2000aja
- 59.3 bUploaded byJhalin Gutierrez
- Sociology Unit Exam 2008Uploaded byappleworks95
- Situation IsmUploaded bydbarkins
- Bullying- Como enfrentarloUploaded bymoro4500
- a model for ethical reasoning.pdfUploaded byAdriana Turdean Vesa
- Prosocial Behavior(Chapter 11)Uploaded bylubnahl
- Why Don’t Workers Say Something When They See Something UnsafeUploaded bySayed Darwish